Labour peer Lord Browne of Ladyton strongly criticises Sunak and the government.

He begins by asking what defines courage. He says: "Is it a desperate and unpopular prime minister threatening to keep some septuagenarians up all night if we do not bow to his will?

"Or is it putting yourself or your family in mortal peril by fighting totalitarianism alongside British forces with no idea of how that struggle will end?"

He says what we've heard in the last few minutes from the Conservative benches this evening might represent a concession.

Lord Browne is referring to the government saying there will be a reassessment of all eligibility decisions under the Afghan relocation scheme, which was set up for people at risk of Taliban reprisals because of their association with UK forces.

He asks Lord Sharpe to repeat that portion of his statement - which he did not refer to as a concession - so peers can take a view on whether they feel the government's position has moved enough for them to support it.

He isn't saying at this stage whether he accepts that possible concession.

Crossbench peer Lord Anderson is making the case for amending the bill.

The former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation says the Lords has within its power to "reinstate" the "principle of honesty in law-making" without damaging the purpose of the bill or further delaying its passage.

He says the Lords is not in a position to declare that Rwanda is and will always be a safe country to send asylum seekers to.

"We are asked to be complicit in a present-day untruth and a future fantasy," he says, saying it is a factual determination on a matter of huge controversy "on which the safety of human beings will depend".

"This is a post-truth bill" which uses the sovereign status of parliament as a shield from scrutiny, he says.

Image source, House of Lords

Nicholas Watt
Political editor, BBC Newsnight

We are now hearing that the government has offered a concession to Lord Browne on the Rwanda bill.

Browne wants Afghan veterans who have served for the UK armed forces to be exempt.

Lord Sharpe says the MoD will reassess all eligibility decisions. Any veteran who has a positive decision will not be removed to Rwanda.

Now over to Des Browne...

Lord Sharpe says the government is reassessing unsuccessful applications which were submitted via the relocation scheme for Afghans to ensure they were assessed fairly.

He says that work is being carried out throughly by an independent team, and tells the Lords the government has given an assurance that any asylum seeker who is already in the UK and has their application approved via that review will not be removed.

Lord Sharpe ends by saying the UK will not let down those who helped British forces in Afghanistan.

Lord Sharpe moves on to speak about the role of monitoring committee.

"Crucially the monitoring committee will undertake daily monitoring of the partnership for at least the first three months," he says and adds that the government being satisfied that Rwanda is safe, is enough to move forward.

"The government is satisfied that Rwanda is safe. I cannot of course predict what will happen in the future but we have established the right mechanisms so should the situation ever arise the government will respond as necessary and this would include a range of options to respond to the circumstances including any primary legislation as required."

Lord Sharpe says "therefore this amendment is not necessary".

He then turns to the other motion, which deals with those who served with the British armed forces and their allies.

Home Office minster Lord Sharpe of Epsom is speaking for the government.

He says the Lords must now accept the will of the elected house and get the bill on the statute book.

He is encouraging peers not to insist on the amendments they added previously.

Having debated the bill previously, he says he will not repeat all the arguments, but says it's a key point that the bill's provisions will come into force when a treaty with Rwanda comes into force.

The UK will only ratify the treaty once it has agreed with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with the obligations it contains, he says.

The House of Lords has begun debating the Rwanda bill.

So far, the Commons and the Lords have not been able to agree on a final version of the bill, and so it is undergoing the parliamentary process known as ping pong, where it passes back and forth between the two.

A little earlier, the Commons voted to strip out two amendments which the Lords had added on a previous day.

The question now is whether the Lords will amend the legislation again and kick off another round of ping pong.

Stick with us for updates.

Barbara Plett Usher
Reporting from Kigali

Rwanda has mostly stood back and watched the legal and political wrangling in the UK. In the meantime, it has been preparing to receive the migrants.

“We welcome healthy debate, obviously,” says Doris Uwicyeza Picard, the official in charge of the Rwandan end of the deal with Britain, “and it has been interesting to watch. But we are committed to seeing this through.”

“As it pertains to Rwanda's side, there is no doubt that they will come here and that they will be settled and integrated in our society.”

The government has prepared a hostel in Kigali to receive the asylum seekers, which can house up to 100 people at a time. This is where their applications will be processed.

Rwanda’s parliament is also working on legislation for the new arrangement. In particular, to ensure that those whose claims for asylum are rejected will not be deported. That was a chief concern for the UK’s Supreme Court.

Amongst Rwandans in the capital, there are mixed views about the deal. Some think the new migrants will be good for the economy. Others, that they will be competition for scarce jobs.

“Rwanda is a small country, and we have so many issues,” says one man. “We've come a long way, we are trying to catch up. So, bringing in other problems that we ourselves have failed to handle, I think that would be a burden to other Rwandans here.”

He didn’t want to be identified talking about a view that opposed government policy, reflecting widespread allegations that dissent is suppressed here. Kigali has denied that, and stressed it has a proven track record of receiving refugees.

Harry Farley
Political correspondent

One of the aims of this bill was to prevent almost all legal challenges against being deported to Rwanda.

The new law would allow individuals to bring legal claims under specific and limited circumstances. But it would prevent general claims on the basis that Rwanda is not safe for asylum seekers. That is because the government insists Rwanda is safe.

But as well as those individual legal claims, Muhunthan Paramesvaran, deputy head of immigration at Wilson Solicitors, told me “there will be legal challenges raising serious constitutional issues”.

He warned the government could end up paying “significant damages” to asylum seekers it deports if the policy is found to be unlawful.

“We have serious concerns about the effect of this legislation on the rule of law,” he said. “It is looking to legislate a way out of findings of fact made by the Supreme Court.”

He added his firm is likely to have a number of claims involving people the government wants to remove.

“One of the arguments is that Parliament has exceeded its role in passing this legislation,” he said.

However it is not clear whether such a legal challenge would prevent, or delay, flights taking off. Paramesvaran said he thought that legal challenges would most likely not suspend flights from taking off.

But he warned: “If people were removed and then the legislation was found to be unlawful they would have to bring them back and pay them significant damages.”

A Home Office source told me the government was expecting legal challenges.

“The Home Office is prepared for any other legal challenges because we have anticipated that people will try,” the source said. “That likelihood is sensibly, baked into our thinking, That doesn’t mean our focus has wavered on moving towards flights as quickly as possible.”

Will Rwanda scheme cost £2m per person?published at 18:30 British Summer Time 22 April

18:30 BST 22 April

During the earlier debate Stephen Kinnock, the shadow minister of immigration, said the Rwanda scheme “is likely to cost a truly astonishing £2m per deportee”.

His claim is based on the presumption that 300 asylum seekers will be sent there – this figure has been mentioned elsewhere by Labour today.

The cost of the Rwanda scheme, based on money already committed by the government and future costs, could reach £600m according to the National Audit Office, external.

This would work out at £2m per asylum seeker sent there.

But Mr Kinnock’s figure does not include any potential savings from the scheme. The government believes it would act as a deterrent and would stop migrants coming to the UK in the first place, saving money on housing them, for example.

That, of course, is all still to be tested.

As we've just been reporting, MPs voted to reject the amendments passed by the Lords on the Rwanda bill.

You can watch footage from the results of the votes below.

This evening's votes means the bill will now be sent back to the House of Lords.

Things could change quickly but we're expecting peers to vote in favour of attaching new amendments and sending the bill back to the Commons.

That could happen a few times tonight - both MPs and peers are poised for a long night of voting.

We'll be following the latest from the Lords and bringing you all the analysis you need on a complicated evening in Westminster.

The latest vote - on a purely procedural matter - has been won comfortably by the government, by 309 votes to 37.

A committee must be formed to draw up reasons why the Commons disagrees with the Lords - the decision to do so would normally pass through the Commons on the nod, but has now been voted on.

Although very few MPs voted against, it gives an indication of the strength of feeling of some of those opposing the bill.

Peter Saull
BBC Political Reporter, Westminster

Why are they voting again in the Commons?

We’ve now got a further delay, and this is one for the real parliamentary procedure anoraks.

MPs have decided to vote on whether to form a committee to draw up the reasons why the Commons disagrees with the Lords.

Usually this kind of thing goes through on the “nod”, meaning MPs don’t have to walk through the voting lobbies.

But not tonight.

Some opposition MPs shouted “no!” when the Deputy Speaker put the question to the House, meaning a vote must take place.

The result will in all likelihood go in the government’s favour, but it pushes thing back by another few minutes on what already promises to be long night.

Peter Saull
Political Reporter

As expected, the House of Commons has just voted to reject the amendments passed by the Lords.

So it’s back we go to the Lords.

Peers are expected to have another short debate, starting after 19:00.

They’ll be considering two new amendments covering similar issues to the last ones but narrower in scope.

One key thing to watch is whether the government minister who addresses the red benches offers anything to try to get the Lords on side.

So far, the government hasn’t moved an inch, which has angered many peers.

They feel that by proposing what they consider sensible changes to the legislation, they’ve been doing exactly what they’re supposed to do.

It seems the Lords isn’t quite ready to back down, but we’ll have to see whether that is reflected in the voting numbers.

One Labour figure just told me they didn’t think I’d be needing my sleeping bag tonight.

But it could be a late one nonetheless.

The second Lords amendment - which would stop Afghans who assisted British forces, as well as other UK allies, from being removed to Rwanda - is also overturned by MPs.

The Commons voted 305 to 234, a majority of 71, to reject it, the deputy speaker says.

MPs are now having a second vote on the other amendment the House of Lords attached to this legislation.

This amendment would stop Afghans who assisted UK armed forces, and other UK allies, from being removed to Rwanda.

It should be about 10 minutes until we know the result but it is expected to be voted down.

The Lords amendment - which would require independent monitors to certify that the UK-Rwanda treaty has been implemented before Rwanda can be treated as a conclusively safe country - has been rejected by MPs.

MPs voted 306 to 229, majority 77 to overturn it, Commons Deputy Speaker Eleanor Laing says.

Image source, PA Media

Former Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron calls the Rwanda scheme cruel, expensive and inept.

He says the public think a vast amount of money is being wasted on a scheme which would only see one in 200 asylum seekers sent to Rwanda, and says the money could be used to pay for 5.7m GP appointments instead.

Farron says the amendments are sensible and any reasonable government would have come to a compromise before now, accusing ministers of steamrolling Parliament and the courts for a policy that wasn't in their manifesto.

He urges the Lords to "keep going" and send any amendments voted down by the Commons back for another vote.

Just before MPs went off to vote, Conservative former cabinet minister Sir Robert Buckland said he supported the government's policy, but made the argument for it considering amendments.

He refers to the amendment which could require independent monitors to certify that the UK-Rwanda treaty has been implemented before Rwanda can be treated as a safe country, and that would also allow the relevant government minister to effectively rule Rwanda unsafe if the treaty is not being adhered to.

Buckland says the amendment strikes an "appropriate balance" and would avoid the need for further primary legislation should the situation in Rwanda change.

On the other amendment referring to exemptions for Afghans who assisted British forces, he also suggests "a little further movement" from the government.